Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Nic Puntis.

To approve and sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 September 2024.

On the proposal of the Chairman, seconded by Cllr Martin Smith, it was:

Resolved

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2024 as a true and correct record.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

The Vice-Chairman arrived at 14:05.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application or any other item on this agenda are asked to register no later than 10 minutes before the start of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. The Chairman will allow up to 3 speakers in favour and up to 3 speakers against an application, and up to 3 speakers on any other item on this agenda. Each speaker will be given up to 3 minutes and invited to speak immediately prior to the item being considered.

Members of the public and others will have had the opportunity to make representations on planning applications and other items on the agenda, and to contact and lobby their local elected member and any other members of the planning committee, prior to the meeting.

Those circulating such information prior to the meeting, written or photographic, are advised to also provide a copy to the case officer for the application or item, in order to officially log the material as a representation, which will be verbally summarised at the meeting by the relevant officer, not included within any officer slide presentation if one is made. Circulation of new information which has not been verified by planning officers or case officers is also not permitted during the meetings.

Questions

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution which excludes, in particular, questions on non-determined planning applications.

Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such questions in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on Wednesday 13 November 2024 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response, questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on Friday 15 November 2024. Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice. Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent.

Details of any questions received will be circulated to Committee members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

The Committee noted the rules on public participation.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate.

The Committee noted that application PL/2022/04524, land east of Ravensroost Road, Ravenshurst Farm, Minety, Malmesbury, SN16 9RJ had gone to appeal.

Cllr Jacqui Lay reported that application PL/2021/06918, for the erection of 61 dwellings at Widham Farm, Purton had been approved at appeal.

On the proposal of Cllr Elizabeth Threlfall, seconded by Cllr Clare Cape, it was:

Resolved

To note the appeal report for the period between 6 September and 8 November 2024.

Retention of hardstanding as car parking, link pedestrian access to adjacent commercial site, landscaping, and biodiversity net gain.

Public Participation

·       Mr Dale Evans spoke in support of the application

·       Cllr Mark Clarke, from Cricklade Town Council, spoke in objection to the application

The Conservation and Planning Officer, James Repper, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the retention of hardstanding as a car park, be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Key details were stated to include the principle of development, environmental and highway impacts. 

Attention was drawn to the location of the site outside of the Chelworth commercial area defined in Cricklade Neighbourhood Plan. However, the officer noted that, whilst the proposed development was in conflict with Policy B5 of the Neighbourhood Plan, it was not expected to generate any additional traffic to the site and would be used primarily for staff parking. The existing hard standing would be linked to the industrial estate by the creation of a new permeable footpath. The officer explained that the proposals would reduce the landscape impact of the existing hardstanding and help to preserve biodiversity. The additional parking would also have a positive impact on highway safety within the Chelworth commercial area which needed to be factored into the planning balance.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers.

Details were sought about the reason for the scale of the development. It was explained that the hardstanding had been installed by a tenant and that the landowner had said that they had had not given their permission for the works. The site was planned to be used primarily for staff parking and could also provide overflow parking for customers.

It was noted that the hardstanding had been used as a location to sell cars but was currently vacant.

In response to a query about whether it would be possible to add a condition that a gate be added to restrict usage by heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), the officer confirmed that it would. He also highlighted that the prohibition of overnight parking and HGVs were also stipulated in the conditions attached to the report.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Nick Dye then spoke in opposition to the application.

In order to begin debate, it was proposed by Cllr Steve Bucknell, seconded by Cllr Ashley O’Neill, that the application be approved for the reasons outlined in the report.

A debate followed where the size and retrospective nature of the application were discussed. In response to queries it was stated that Cricklade Neighbourhood Plan could be accorded full weight in the planning balance.

Other issues raised included the highway impacts and potential for use by HGVs. To address concerns about these issues, Cllr Elizabeth Threlfall proposed an amendment that a lockable, height restricted, gate be installed at the site entrance. The proposed amendment was accepted as a friendly amendment by the proposer and seconder of the original motion, Cllrs Bucknell and O’Neill.

Following a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Reserved Matters Application pursuant of Outline Permission 19/05898/OUT (Outline application for up to 50 residential units, internal road, parking, open space and associated works, with all matters reserved other than access) relating to Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale.

Public Participation

·       Mrs Kim Power had a statement read out in objection to the application

·       Mr Tom Cole spoke in support of the application

The Conservation and Planning Officer, James Repper, introduced a report which recommended that the reserved matters application for 40 dwellings with associated parking, amenity space, public open space, hard and soft landscaping plus associated works, be approved. Key details were stated to include the scale, design and residential amenity of the proposed development.

The Committee were reminded that outline permission for up to 50 dwellings on the site had been approved by the Inspector, so the principle of development had already been established. There had been no objection from Wiltshire Council’s urban design, ecology or landscaping teams. The Conservation and Planning Officer also highlighted that the development would contain 42.5 percent affordable housing, which was agreed as part of the outline permission.   

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions to officers.

In response to a question about the relationship between the subject site and a neighbouring site to the east, which had been granted permission for the erection of 23 dwellings, it was explained that there would be no direct connection between the two sites and that the hedgerow between the two would be maintained. 

Details were sought about the emergency access arrangements for the site in the event of a flood. Officers explained that a compacted track through the field to the west of the site, which was also owned by the applicant, would provide vehicular access for the emergency services.  The emergency access was not part of the reserved matters application but would be stipulated as part of a discharge of conditions application PL2023/08583 attached to the outline permission. It would not be necessary to add a condition stipulating that the emergency access track was constructed prior to the completion of any dwellings as this matter would be covered as part of Condition 12 of the outline application. A gate with a coded lock would prevent vehicular access along the track by residents and other members of the public.

When questioned further about objections relating to drainage at the site, it was explained that there were no objections from the Lead Local Flood Authority to the application before the Committee. It was confirmed that the applicant had made available the documents relating to both the reserved matters and outline permissions, so that all of the relevant documents relating to drainage were in the public domain. It was noted that discharge of condition applications were not published until they had been approved and that no request from the public, to access drainage documents for the reserved matters application, had been received. 

In response to a query about whether the proposed development could share its emergency access with the approved development to the east of the site, it was noted that both sites were not in the same ownership when the original applications were submitted. The emergency access arrangements had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency.

There were no urgent items.